Well that depends. I think we have to be wary of over simplification.
If one the one hand its, I dunno,

lets say fifteen oiling points between the frames that you've got to go between anyway, using the same oilcan you already have,
as opposed to
going back to the stores, getting the special grease gun, filling it up, going back to the locomotive, greasing the 8 nipples, then taking the grease gun back to the stores

which do you think is more likely to be skipped?

Click to expand...

I think there's a point to be made here that simplifying locomotive maintenance by the very nature of reducing the number of cylinders and oiling points indicates a thinking which says there was likely not going to be the manpower or at the very least, the level of decent manpower post war as pre-war.

Bulleid did - as Tom has pointed out in this thread - much the same thing albeit by encasing the valve gear in an oil bath in the Bulleid Pacifics and putting on a slab sided casing for cleaning, effectively.

Thompson and Bulleid saw the same problems and approached them differently in terms of their solutions. That's engineering.

I have um'd and ah'd over the course of the last day as to whether to respond to this post directly, and whether if doing so would show myself up as having bias.

I must confess that it has been difficult over the last three to four years to remain fully impartial when writing the book and writing in this thread. As much as I would like to say I am impartial, I am not: I have come to care about Edward Thompson's reputation implicitly and in several ways, I have felt it my duty to correct certain "facts" where the evidence shows something to the contrary.

We have covered the Great Northern story several times in this thread. If you have the patience to go back to page 1 and read back through to the present day you will see new evidence, new claims, and different points of view are abundant. My own views developed a lot since the early days.

I no longer believe anything that has been said about the Great Northern build, outside of what Dick Hardy reported, the LNER’s own internal briefs and reports on the engine, and its availability figures and total mileage reported in several locations.

These are the bare facts:

The sole A1/1 was the highest mileage Thompson Pacific by the end of its career.

It was a single locomotive that tended to get moved around shed to shed – much like the W1 (as the LNER operated a policy of focusing groups of the same classes of engines to depots, to help standardise somewhat on keeping spares and required manpower, including knowledgeable crews).

It was in works more often than a Gresley or Peppercorn Pacific.

Its overall availability was better than most of the Gresley A3s, matching closely the A4 Pacifics with which its design is most intrinsically linked.

The A1/1 was effectively a double chimney Gresley A4 Pacific with a Thompson front end cylinder/valve gear arrangement. Unlike the other Thompson Pacifics, the middle connecting rod was not the same length as the outside pair.

It had a low rate of adhesion – but this rate of adhesion (around 0.37) was like the Bulleid Pacifics and the other Thompson Pacifics. All Pacifics tend to have a low rate of adhesion in some respects, and all Pacifics can and do wheelslip. Great Northern is very well known for one specific incident, which happened during a time in its life when a different regulator type was in use (GCR pull out type) and this is likely to have contributed in some ways to that incident).

Great Northern’s cab design was originally different, with a level floor (pre-shadowing the Standard Pacific cabs in several ways) but was converted to be similar to the other Gresley and Thompson Pacifics early on in its career.

That’s about it really. All other things are anecdotal and most of what is written is either highly dismissive, but without facts or figures.

The question “did Thompson choose Great Northern or not” is simply answered as “no, he did not”.

G.A. Musgrave selected the locomotive. It was in works, it was the oldest Pacific, the “rebuild” took apart an older locomotive, splitting it for spares, and reused the bare minimum of parts to enable a new locomotive to be built for comparison and further development (which ultimately did not come to pass).

Teddy Windle was the chief draughtsman. There are variations of the story with regards him remonstrating with Thompson. None of them are entirely consistent to one another. The big issue is whether you believe the CME could have turned around to the works – already dismantling and rebuilding the locomotive – and told them to stop the work.

CMEs, the chain of command, Doncaster Works and the general railway world don’t work in the way that many LNER writers describe it. This much is abundantly true if you look at the emergency board notes.

The CME puts out a spec. His team of designers put together a design from his specification. He approves the drawings. A request is put out for a locomotive to be nominated for the rebuild. The locomotive superintendent shops a locomotive, it goes into works and those tasked with making the new locomotive start work almost immediately.

Put simply, the drawing office don’t have a direct line to the Works in the way people seem to think they did. By the time news would have reached Windle or Thompson, the die is cast.

There are photographs of Great Northern being built and it is particularly interesting how quickly it went together from the dismantling.

Most of the locomotive – which wasn’t exactly original from the 1922 build in any event – went into the pool of spares and were used on other locomotives (frames, boiler, cab). Items that were reused were the driving wheel centres, parts of the cartazzi setup (but not all as Great Northern’s setup was unique amongst the LNER Pacifics) and the tender frames and wheelsets.

Here is where I think there is a misinterpretation of what happened. And this is entirely speculative on my part.

Windle and Thompson remonstrate on Great Northern. By the time of this remonstration, Windle and Thompson will be aware that the building of the new locomotive has got to a stage whereby restoring the original engine is likely impossible.

I contend that the argument is actually about losing the name “Great Northern”. All of Thompson’s Pacifics up to this point have started their lives nameless. Thompson was reluctant in naming locomotives, full stop. He was asked about a name for the B1s and – perhaps tritely – pumped for “Utility”. He was said to be disappointed when “Springbok” emerged.

It is likely based on his past behaviour and ideas that 4470 might have emerged nameless. This takes a different slant on things. That really would be erasing a part of Gresley’s history.

Hence Windle may have remonstrated with Thompson over this detail.

Do we have proof for this? In fact, we have some evidence. The emergency board notes for the new A1/1 note that a locomotive was selected but no name given. There’s no fanfare, no identification of the locomotive’s history. It is just a rebuild of an existing locomotive in line with that suggested by the Cox Report.

Great Northern emerges from the works with several surprising things.

It is the first Thompson Pacific to emerge with a name from day one – it is in fact the only one so treated – the names of the A2/2s restored to them each after a period of testing and rebuilding – the A2/1s were named later, to match the A2/2s – the A2/3s get their names after periods of testing. Even no.500 Edward Thompson starts its life nameless and was named later to coincide with Thompson’s retirement at the behest of the LNER board, recognising his service for their company.

It carries N E on the tender – despite the full LNER being applied from around the same time back onto locomotives after four years of austerity measures. It is also in a version of Great Eastern blue livery.

It has full electric lighting plus foldable discs. New version of the standard eight-wheel tender. The best parts of the Gresley A4 setup (in Thompson’s eyes) which included much of the main frame design, boiler, and the double kylchap setup.

We have a very brief report from Dick Hardy in his book “steam in the blood” on Great Northern’s unveiling. It was the last time he saw Edward Thompson, I recall.

It’s an extraordinary amount of detail and care and attention put onto what was intended to be the LNER’s new A1 Pacific.

Thompson was not a PR man. That much is made abundantly clear from his views on liveries and names! So why did Great Northern come out like this?

Perhaps Windle convinced him of some nostalgia and feeling that was being felt around the works and drawing office. Dismay at losing the name, not rebuilding the locomotive.

There was clear pride in the new locomotive and its building. No, it wasn’t perfect – it suffered similar issues that all Thompson Pacifics had – and of course its unique cab design should have been properly stayed.

I look at the whole thing in the round, and I feel strongly that perhaps Thompson was convinced into taking the time to consider what it would do for morale if he carried on in the vein he had done previously.

I don’t think he set out to “destroy Gresley” with the A1/1 design – equally I think he did not have the self-awareness to see how his actions could be perceived.

Great Northern in her working life was used on a vast number of one-off trains and railtours, a fact well photographed but rarely mentioned by LNER writers. She received all the main liveries including express blue.

New nameplates with the crests for the Great Northern Railway company were made up and fitted in the 1950s to match the Peppercorn A1s similarly named.

I think over time the story around Great Northern has been twisted, blown out of proportion, and developed into a Thompson hates Gresley storyline which only suits the agenda of a select few who felt aggrieved at decisions Thompson had taken with them.

The reality is probably a lot more straightforward: an engineer decided to rebuild an engine and the design was done in a time where nostalgia wasn’t at the forefront of his mind. Another man – his chief draughtsman – reminded him of the importance of this particular locomotive.

Did Thompson relent? Did the works take it on themselves to paint the locomotive accordingly?

I find it difficult to believe that anyone other than Thompson would have asked for the GER Prussian blue to be applied – he had a great love of the Great Eastern, particularly given his time at Stratford Works – he had also worked for the Great Northern and North Eastern Railway companies in his life.

Whatever the truth of it, the rebuilt locomotive did good work, and worked up until 1960. A pretty good record for a one-off locomotive.

When all’s said and done, we don’t have the physical evidence to claim one way or another.

We know what is alleged against Thompson – that is written – it is up to the individual to look at the situation in the round, knowing better how things worked in terms of railway works and their drawing offices, and make a decision on what they think happened.

For my part, I think it highly likely that losing the name Great Northern was a more likely and very real “erasure of Gresley’s history” than the idea that building a new 6ft 8in Pacific design, based on arguably Gresley’s best express locomotive work, and developing it further, is.

Click to expand...

Hi Simon, "I hear you" as an urbane lawyer would say. I will take it as a compliment that you replied at such length. Heaven knows how long your reply would have been had the post had a pro-Gresley bias! As I said, I think the issue of Thompson's motivation for action or inaction on this point (of selecting Great Northern) is irrelevant to an appraisal of his work in general (or for that matter, as you seem to be coupling the two together, in the capability of the "rebuilt" loco). To try and forestall critics summarising your work in terms of your rebuttal of his posited petty behaviour arising out of an antipathy towards Gresley, if I may be impertinent enough to suggest, you might consider relegating the issue to an appendix.

To impose further on your time (and I apologise if I have missed this), I would be interested to know what ET's response to the loco availability issue was in terms of actions that would be/were effective in a shorter term than the lengthy timescales inherent in rebuilds or new locos?

Hi Simon, "I hear you" as an urbane lawyer would say. I will take it as a compliment that you replied at such length. Heaven knows how long your reply would have been had the post had a pro-Gresley bias! As I said, I think the issue of Thompson's motivation for action or inaction on this point (of selecting Great Northern) is irrelevant to an appraisal of his work in general (or for that matter, as you seem to be coupling the two together, in the capability of the "rebuilt" loco). To try and forestall critics summarising your work in terms of your rebuttal of his posited petty behaviour arising out of an antipathy towards Gresley, if I may be impertinent enough to suggest, you might consider relegating the issue to an appendix.

To impose further on your time (and I apologise if I have missed this), I would be interested to know what ET's response to the loco availability issue was in terms of actions that would be/were effective in a shorter term than the lengthy timescales inherent in rebuilds or new locos?

Click to expand...

Just to say that I have not forgot this question, though I am trying to put together my own thoughts on this. It's a very complicated answer to what is a relatively simple question. I suppose it starts with "it depends"...! Answer coming soon. My apologies for the tardy reply.

Just to say that I have not forgot this question, though I am trying to put together my own thoughts on this. It's a very complicated answer to what is a relatively simple question. I suppose it starts with "it depends"...! Answer coming soon. My apologies for the tardy reply.

One thing I did notice, though. You make a point of how the tales of them looking for an alternative to Thompson wouldn't have been possible since he was appointed at the first board meeting after Gresley's death, leaving no time for a search. However... Gresley had been quite ill for some months, and that, plus his age, had to have turned minds to 'what do we do next' before his death. So if any alternatives were considered, perhaps it was during that period? I'm not saying they did enquire, mind; just that the timing of the board meeting is not, I don't think, quite the 'killer' argument you portray it as.

One thing I did notice, though. You make a point of how the tales of them looking for an alternative to Thompson wouldn't have been possible since he was appointed at the first board meeting after Gresley's death, leaving no time for a search. However... Gresley had been quite ill for some months, and that, plus his age, had to have turned minds to 'what do we do next' before his death. So if any alternatives were considered, perhaps it was during that period? I'm not saying they did enquire, mind; just that the timing of the board meeting is not, I don't think, quite the 'killer' argument you portray it as.

Noel

Click to expand...

Hi Noel,

A fair point, which is why the board meeting notes I have collated and read at length, go back to 1937 and up to the last meeting in 1948.

Getting some feedback on this now via usual channels. Enjoying the back and forth.

The question of how much the board minutes were used to spare Thompson’s blushes has been made.

If they were, and we assume some consistency of this throughout Gresley’s reign too, then the manner in which the chairman of the board was robust in his questioning of the CME role and its demands should then be overlooked.

In short, I don’t think there’s much evidence to suggest that the LNER board sought to spare any of their CMEs blushes. Rather that they were clearly much trusted men who were able to speak their mind and receive the same in kind.

It was a close knit board and I am struck in particular by some pieces where the depth of feeling was quite clear, in particular the at times almost monthly obituaries during WW2 due mostly in part to enemy action.

Sorry, the website seemed to be playing silly Bs yesterday. Repeated attempts sometimes got me a garbled version of the page I wanted, but when I tried to post a reply the QUOTE part worked but it wouldn't accept any input from my keyboard. After my blank post appeared I tried editing it, but still couldn't type anything.

What I was going to say was further to jnc's suggestion that the LNER Board might have started looking for a new CME when it became apparent that Gresley could not continue for long. How plausible is it that they might have made tentative informal approaches to one or two possible individuals without putting anything in the Board minutes?

ET's salary was agreed at £4000pa + £500pa for overseeing war work. Munitions workers were "well paid" at £7-£9 per week.
A new build pacific would cost around £8000 (iirc)
So by today's standard, the CME's role was roughly 3/4-1 million a year-about right for an important job in a big company.
1. You pay that sort of money to get someone competent and capable.
2. You choose carefully who you appoint.
3. You trust them to get on with the job.
Whilst there may have been off the record discussion about who HNG's successor might be, I cannot believe formal approaches would have been made, and rebuffed, without them being minuted.

ET's salary was agreed at £4000pa + £500pa for overseeing war work. Munitions workers were "well paid" at £7-£9 per week.
A new build pacific would cost around £8000 (iirc)
So by today's standard, the CME's role was roughly 3/4-1 million a year-about right for an important job in a big company.
1. You pay that sort of money to get someone competent and capable.
2. You choose carefully who you appoint.
3. You trust them to get on with the job.
Whilst there may have been off the record discussion about who HNG's successor might be, I cannot believe formal approaches would have been made, and rebuffed, without them being minuted.

Click to expand...

Not having read the minutes, I can't be sure, but I find it less surprising that discussions over even as senior an appointment as that would leave only a partial trace in the minutes.

ET's salary was agreed at £4000pa + £500pa for overseeing war work. Munitions workers were "well paid" at £7-£9 per week.
A new build pacific would cost around £8000 (iirc)
So by today's standard, the CME's role was roughly 3/4-1 million a year-about right for an important job in a big company.
1. You pay that sort of money to get someone competent and capable.
2. You choose carefully who you appoint.
3. You trust them to get on with the job.
Whilst there may have been off the record discussion about who HNG's successor might be, I cannot believe formal approaches would have been made, and rebuffed, without them being minuted.

Click to expand...

I suspect your equivalence of £4,500 per year as £3/4 - 1 million is a bit of an over-estimate.

An interesting point is that it represents a multiple of about 10 - 12 times the "well paid" salary of £7 - £9 per week: a more equitable distribution, I would suggest, than the current wide divergence between top salaries and those of average workers.

A fair point, which is why the board meeting notes I have collated and read at length, go back to 1937 and up to the last meeting in 1948.

Click to expand...

I take your meaning to be that there's nothing in the prior minutes on the subject?

The thing is that it's the kind of thing that one suspects would likely have been handled in informal discussions, not in a way that would have shown up in the minutes; particularly while the previous occupant was still alive, but ailing - so as to spare his feelings in what had to have been a difficult period. At the same time, as I said, it's the kind of thing good management would have attended to, so lack of mention prior is almost a Holmesian 'dog that did not bark'.

The thing is that it's the kind of thing that at this temporal remove it's going to be almost impossible to look into (failing a lucky find of a mention in a personal letter, or something like that). I think it's better to focus on the things where there are contemporary, written, primary sources (which are the gold standard for historians for good reasons), like the availability records, Cox report, etc.

I take your meaning to be that there's nothing in the prior minutes on the subject?

The thing is that it's the kind of thing that one suspects would likely have been handled in informal discussions, not in a way that would have shown up in the minutes; particularly while the previous occupant was still alive, but ailing - so as to spare his feelings in what had to have been a difficult period. At the same time, as I said, it's the kind of thing good management would have attended to, so lack of mention prior is almost a Holmesian 'dog that did not bark'.

The thing is that it's the kind of thing that at this temporal remove it's going to be almost impossible to look into (failing a lucky find of a mention in a personal letter, or something like that). I think it's better to focus on the things where there are contemporary, written, primary sources (which are the gold standard for historians for good reasons), like the availability records, Cox report, etc.

Noel

Click to expand...

But as Simon might note - given the current "record of note" from the UK Ambassador to the USA - even these have to be looked at carefully in case bias (e.g. Gresley staff) might give a false impression of events. I believe this is part of the task of re-appraisal that Simon is hoping to have published at some point.

But as Simon might note - given the current "record of note" from the UK Ambassador to the USA - even these have to be looked at carefully in case bias (e.g. Gresley staff) might give a false impression of events. I believe this is part of the task of re-appraisal that Simon is hoping to have published at some point.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure about your example, or it’s relevance here. However, any good historian will always interrogate written sources not just for what is written but by whom and for what purpose.

An interesting point is that it represents a multiple of about 10 - 12 times the "well paid" salary of £7 - £9 per week: a more equitable distribution, I would suggest, than the current wide divergence between top salaries and those of average workers.

Tom

Click to expand...

I like your review of my fag packet arithmetic. I was reckoning that a series production pacific would represent about £1m in todays money, but it doesn't matter. Typical industrial wage was 80-105s per week, so £200-£212 per annum, but as you say, inflation comparisons are difficult.
The point is this- most of us still see Thompson as an also ran, thanks to the unflattering reports of the last half century. Gresley Gresley Gresley. for thirty glorious years, then sadly he died, and suddenly Thompson emerges from the dark shadows where he'd been plotting how to destroy HNG's legacy.
So we've been led to imagine the LNER board sitting around, heads in hands, saying "Gresley's dead, what the hell do we do?"
Ask Stanier, get Bulleid back, have the GWR got anyone we can poach? Anything but Thompson.....

Fact is, they had hitherto thought Thompson worth a third of a pacific per annum.
They had not apparently requested Thompson's resignation, or sought to censure him in any way.
He may have lacked some of HNG's panache, charm, whatever, but ET had a sound track record as a locomotive and rolling stock engineer/manager.
It could be that ET's appointment was the proverbial "no brainer", hence no minuted discussion.

I don't know why Thompson's appointment is receiving so much attention of late. I suggest you all have a look at how Douglas Earle Marsh was appointed to the LBSCR whilst Robert Billinton was still in charge, but in failing health, and how Douglas Earle Marsh was superseded by Lawson Billinton in cloudy circumstances; Klaus Marx's book on Marsh provides much of the Board minutes and machinations behind the scenes.

Another comparison is Churchward and Dean.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Bulleid, now on the SR, approached to take over from Gresley as first choice?